Vilma vs. Goodell in open court could provide closure
the power of the NFL shield.
Now Vilma is taking a swing in a civil suit filed in U.S. District Court, alleging, among other things, Goodell made false, defamatory statements that are injurious to his reputation.
Goodell has to respond by July 5. The NFL will likely move for a dismissal, based on a no-suit provision in the collective bargaining agreement, although the limits of that clause are subject to legal interpretation.
If the case proceeds, it undoubtedly would go a lot further in revealing the inner workings of the bounty system than was outlined in the league’s 93-minute news media briefing Mon-
Jonathan Vilma won’t go down in history as another Curt Flood — the man who risked his Major League Baseball career in a legal fight for free agency a generation ago.
But Vilma’s conviction has significance, given the nerve the suspended New Orleans Saints linebacker is demonstrating by suing NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell for defamation.
“I don’t think it took courage to take a stand,” Vilma told me at NFL headquarters Monday, before his appeal hearing.
Vilma could have gotten a few things off his chest in appealing a one-year suspension for his role in the bounty scandal but opted not to answer questions during the closed-door session with Goodell and didn’t return after the hearing was adjourned.
So much for providing incentive for Goodell to reduce the hefty suspension. Yet clearly the lawsuit is a separate matter.
In a sense, it’s like something from Animal House, and the rousing scene when John Belu- shi’s character, Bluto, rallies his crew and declares, “Nothing is over until we decide it is!”
Players have been rebuffed in legal attempts to lessen Goodell’s authority, with recent rulings by arbitrators upholding day. Vilma seeks a real court, a real judge and a real jury. And witnesses swearing on a Bible.
“I think it’s a really challenging lawsuit for Vilma,” Los Angeles-based attorney and defamation expert Mitchell Langberg says. “He has to prove the accusations are false, that he wasn’t part of the bounty program. And he has to prove that Goodell knew it was false.”
Imagine the witness list: In addition to scorned former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, a lesser-known former quality-control coach, Mike Cerullo, can tell the world what he knows. Cerullo was part of an e-mail exchange with Williams and Mike Ornstein, the marketing agent and felon who the NFL says pledged thousands to the bounty pool.
Then there’s Joe Vitt. Want to explain how the name of the Saints interim coach showed up on a ledger with a $5,000 pledge toward a bounty on Brett Favre?
And hey, Vilma can explain some stuff, too, including his alleged $10,000 pledge on Favre and the money the NFL claims he used to start bounties.
The league also maintains when Williams jump-started the program, he got approval from Vilma and fellow defensive co-captain Will Smith (suspended for four games).
The players’ attorneys wanted coaches and other witnesses for the appeals hearing but were denied by the NFL. They would get them in a full-blown trial.
No wonder Scott Fujita, another of the Frozen Four, left 345 Park Ave. grumbling that NFL headquarters was not the proper place for adjudication.
He can take that up with his union, too. When I asked NFL Players Association chief De- Maurice Smith recently about negotiating to lessen some of Goodell’s power during CBA talks last year, he said there were more important economic and work-rule issues in play. But now players are wishing RG1 were not still judge, jury and executioner.
Vilma and his legal wingman, Peter Ginsberg, have crafted a plan that, if not reducing Goodell’s power, takes the bounty scandal to open court. The suit seeks unspecified damages. Yet given the scope of the NFL’s probe and varying degrees of punishment, Langberg says it’s tough to imagine Goodell had incentive to go after Vilma.
If Vilma somehow prevails, it likely wouldn’t alter the suspensions. But with another round of denials flying Tuesday — including Anthony Hargrove contending it wasn’t his voice on a videotape demanding payment for an assumed bounty — just getting to court would provide more truth in the bounty scandal.
And perhaps, finally, closure.